Jeff Dickie perpetuates the myths

On Nine to Noon this morning (National Radio) Kathryn Ryan had both Malcolm Farry and Jeff Dickie on the show, discussing the possibility for the stadium go ahead.

Apart from the usual hot air from the Anti Stadium folk, “I’ve lived here all my life, I love Dunedin” etc etc, there was so much about his rant that is just typical of this whole debate.

Well sorry Mr Dickie, my family too has been here for well over 100 years, there’s a street named after my family and their farm in Kaikorai Valley, and I too am proud to be a Dunedinite – what’s your point?

His assertion that if you are for the stadium you are a Zealot, and if you are against it you are more or less a patriot is just daft. I would guess 99.99% of the people that live in this town are fans of the place, we all love Dunedin. But it’s nice to be able to paint your opponents in the light that there is something wrong with them, and Zealot is a nice term – the implication is that you’ve been brainwashed etc.

He mentioned that he made a submission at the recent planning hearing, and that he was yelled at, and there’s this ‘climate of fear’. Get over yourself!!! If at the submission you were talking about anything that is outside of the realms of the immediate planning issues before the commissioners, then you had no right to do so. As for this climate of fear. Really, are people going to come around and kneecap you, burn your house down, or perhaps just look at you a little differently. There is nothing to fear, if you have the courage of conviction that what you are doing is right, then you should not fear anything. There are no ‘hoods with weapons’ or potential backlashes against those opposing this stadium, more unsubstantiated hogwash that needs to be dispelled as, ironically, fear mongering. I’ve seen it creep into the debate recently, if you oppose this stadium, you should fear a backlash, when in actual fact all you are doing (a la GW Bush) is creating the perception that something should be feared, thus creating your own level of fear.

He again bought up the peer reviews and the spectre of Rodney Hide. Let’s get it stated one more time, the peer reviews DID NOT STATE THAT THIS PROJECT SHOULD NOT GO AHEAD. They issued warnings, and that’s a good thing, warnings at an early stage are good, and need heeding, but nowhere in the peer reviews did they state that the project should be canned. As for Rodney Hide, he doesn’t believe in tax or global warming, say no more.

As stated in the Peer Reviews:

The Design of the Stadium, the selection of materials, design functionality and fitness for purpose has been developed in accordance with internationally recognised standards.

More importantly:

The construction and non-construction costs including contingency and escalation allowances have been independently reviewed and verified to be within normal estimating tolerances.

They did go on to request more information, which of course is prudent. But even with exclusions from material they have already requested, the latest Peer Review did not state that the stadium is a project that can’t go ahead. You claim that councillors haven’t read the Peer Reviews. Do you know this for a fact? I’d find that very hard to believe.

You talk of propaganda time and time again, but the biggest perpetrator of lies, disinformation and propaganda and again today, you have perpetrated that with this ‘culture of fear’ rehash. The sewage and water opportunity costs that you keep raising, are a myth, the council is completing current sewage upgrades and the project to clean up the water quality of the northern outlying districts of Dunedin has started. Back that claim up – or please quite respectfully shut up!

The lines in the sand that you claim are shifting are indeed shifting, but they are shifting against the stadium. Every time the council meets there are extra caveats put on the stadium and its funding, and each time the CST has accepted these new challenges. Jeff, you talk about open and honest debate, and then make some sort of underhanded remark about parochial newspaper (suggesting some sort of bias) – proof? There have been more articles from the insane through to the reasonable from opponents of this stadium that one could imagine. Please if you want those of us supporting this stadium to be ‘honest and open’, could you please stand in front of the same mirror and apply that rule too thank you very much.

Take for instance the Auckland ‘open and robust’ comment with regard to their failed Stadium of New Zealand venture. That was neither open, nor robust, it was two sides shouting a hell of a lot at each other, there was no ‘open and robust’. It was a have, and in the end it was side-lined not by a rigorous debating of the facts, but by political interference. I followed this debate closely and know this to be true. The level of debate around that stadium development and the timeframe was akin to a smoko argument, short and ugly.

I’m not sure which newspaper, TV or other media you have been following, but the level of debate around the new stadium in Dunedin has been huge, the level of financial caveats placed upon the CST and financial lines in the sand is greater now than at any stage of the development of the stadium in Wellington, and this is a fact.

But then you bring up the old tired arguments:

Rugby Initiative – Buzzz WRONG
Awful lot of poor people here – Yes and No
Population too small – Wrong

Buzzz Buzzz Buzzz. Sorry are you living in a bubble, as Malcolm said, have you read any of the material around the stadium. How many sports have come out in support of this project, have many have said they would love it to go ahead? Just last week Soccer South came out in support of the project. Football and Rugby, being collectively the two biggest community sporting organisations in the area, have come out in support of it, that is community. Again to say that this isn’t a multi-use stadium for Rugby, is beyond disinformation, because we know the opposite to be true, therefore it’s a lie. You know the facts yet choose to ignore them.

Again an awful article on the radio, the ‘zealots’ opposing the stadium rehash the same old arguments time and time again, without ever being able to back them up with facts.

This is not a single use stadium and the peer reviews (while critical) did not categorically state the project be canned.

Sorry Jeff, if you want open and robust debate, by all means, I too seek that, but rehashing myths, disinformation and conjecture is not even close to what you seek. Again, stand in front of the mirror and apply the same rules to your comments and concerns please, that’s all I’m asking.

Posted by Paul Le Comte

Advertisements

71 Comments

Filed under Construction, Economics, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Town planning

71 responses to “Jeff Dickie perpetuates the myths

  1. Peter Entwisle

    Paul, again, you are mistaken.

    Jeff Dickie wasn’t talking about the response he got at the planning hearings but at a city council forum the other day. And the interjections were significant. They show the councillors, in this case Cr. Bezett, getting rattled and angry.

    The devil is in the detail Paul. Too often you fail to master it. You’re not too good on the big picture either where most can see the storm clouds gathering over the stadium.

  2. Peter it was actually hard to keep up with what Jeff was on about, I had to pause the interview and start again, he was in stream of consciousness rants. Sorry if he said he was giving evidence recently at planning hearing and there were interjections, what else am I to assume.

    Not too worried about my understanding of the Devil, I’d like to know which detail he was so brilliantly astute on, as to be so subtle that even mildly intelligent people like myself weren’t able to pick up on? Seemingly he was unaware of the detail too.

    Peter all I ask for is honesty, and if people keep on the myths, lies and disinformation I’ll report it. If they argue clear and consistently without diving into the mirky waters of some sort of mythical Tartan Mafia, then it stands on it’s own merits.

    Take dear old Mr Adie of the Ratepayers Association, shame he was so far off the mark when it came to his letter in the paper this morning. My understanding of the situation, because of the running track that surrounds the Caledonian Ground, the football pitch is too small for top flight football (not even the Phoenix can play a regular season game there), there is no way it is international quality. That is why the Jr Football tournament a couple of years back was hosted by FIFA was at Carisbrook. The Caledonian is too small, not International quality. For internationals the ground needs to be 100m long and 64m wide minimum.

    Yet still more disinformation and/or lies. For me the devil is in the detail in that little gem, perhaps you could suggest that to Syd next time you see him. Just playing your game Peter.

  3. Further to that Peter,

    if said clouds on the horizon are indeed true and this project is scuttled (which I still don’t believe there’s a decent case against), what has it been scuttled on, myths, lies and disinformation.

    What a terrible indictment on the people of Dunedin and their aspirations for this city.

    If however the project was defeated on the merits of good argument and sound judgement, I would accept that, but the plain fact of the matter is that it isn’t.

    The list of ‘excuses’ (I’ll be more generous and leave the term lie out for the moment) against the stadium from broadband failures through to rugby pipe dreams is extensive. It’s clouded any shred of informed and reasoned debate, it’s taken the people for a fool, and for what ever reason, the likes of Global Warming flooding the stadium seem to have won the day, regardless of the fact that this is a out and out falsehood.

    The people deserve to be treated better than this, and it’s a mighty shame that they’ve been taken for such a ride.

  4. Peter Entwisle

    For a start Paul,

    A lie is not simply something said which is not true, it’s something said which the speaker believes is false.

    It is cheap and easy to accuse others of lying when all you know is that you (believe) what they are saying is untrue.

    You are propagating disinformation by accusing others of lying when you haven’t reached this first base. “Disinformation” is not the same as “misinformation” it means lies as opposed to mistakes. It’s an important difference.

    Concerning Jeff Dickie – you were relying on your warped impression of what was said at the planning hearings – not all of which was nonsense – to diss what Jeff was saying. It is true some of what was said at the hearings was irrelevant, although it certainly wasn’t interjected and shouted down. Jeff was talking about his appearance in a very different forum. That Cr. Bezett interjected 18 times is relevant because it tells you something about what one of the staunchest stadium supporters on the city council is feeling – not thinking. This is the devil and these are the details.

    If you could manage to stand back from the process for a moment you might see what’s happening. If you can’t get it intuitively – as most people can, although sometimes wrongly – you could try to arrive at it by analysis.

    Things are not always heading the way we would like them to. They won’t always get there just by the power of wishful thinking. This is true whether you want the Awatea Street stadium or not.

    Harrumph. I’m not really trying to lecture you but it astounds me that people of intelligence, which you obviously are, can’t work out what’s really going down.

  5. Peter,

    I am very clear on what I am claiming.

    lie 2 |laɪ| |lʌɪ|
    noun
    • an intentionally false statement
    • used with reference to a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression

    Further, you seem to think that misinformation is a lesser of the evils.

    misinformation |ˈmɪsɪnfəˈmeɪʃ(ə)n|
    noun
    false or inaccurate information, esp. that which is deliberately intended to deceive.

    and disinformation comes up with a very strikingly similar definition, for me they are all deception, and if that is any basis for discourse over something as important as this, then I pity us.

    Jeff Dickie claimed once again, despite the complete and full body of evidence against this pathetic claim that it’s a single use “Rugby Initiative, and it’s all to do with supporting rugby, it’s not a community thing, it’s got a very very narrow focus”.

    So how are we to take that. Either he’s lived in a bubble for the past 18 months, in which case he’s not qualified to comment on the situation, or he’s adhering to the second part of the definition of word Lie, and that he’s using an falsehood to founded on mistaken impression to perpetuate claims against the stadium, “false information that is intended to mislead.” Because be very clear here, he’s using this statement to dissuade anyone that might still be making their mind up on this issue. It’s a deliberate act of falsehood.

    And to be quite frank Peter I’m bloody sick of it. It started a long time back at your fist meeting I attended with the infamous Dr Hamlin’s false claims that Twickenham is a single use stadium, and it’s been perpetuated time and time again. This despite organisations involved in sport, culture and education all stating categorically that they wish to use this wonderful facility when it is completed. Twickenham is not a single use stadium, the new Carisbrook Stadium is not a single use stadium.

    Peter regarding what was said on National Radio this morning, for the sake of being bloody boring, here’s a transcript (I have downloaded the podcast.)

    “I have very real concerns, that, both councils, have not, Regional Council and City councils have not read the peer reviews”.

    Well I can’t speak for all of the councillors, but being related to one and knowing another very well (one against the other marginal FYI), they have read the peer reviews, and haven’t told me that nobody hasn’t. Does he know this for a fact or is he “used with reference to a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression”.

    Further, with regard to debate about the stadium, he claimed that there hasn’t been open and frank debate about the stadium. Again where has this man been for the last 18 months, he’s attended hearings, obviously read the so called ‘parochial and vocal local newspaper’, yet he still claims the opposite – more misinformation. There has been (despite the campaign of dis/misinformation and lies) a full and open debate around this topic. He talked about the culture of fear, get over yourself, there is no culture of fear, those opposing the stadium have stated so very publicly every other day in the paper or other media organisations. Yet more mis/disinformation intended to dissuade those wavering in their opinions of the stadium.

    With regard to the claims that sewage and water treatment projects are a casulty of council spending priorities. His claim “Malcolm have you been to St Clair beach recently”, is again ‘false or inaccurate information, esp. that which is deliberately intended to deceive.’ Again he’s either lived in a bubble for the last couple of years, is exceedingly short sighted and not noticed the couple of hundred yard temporary jetty where they are building the new sewage outfall pipeline, or he’s stating a ‘false or inaccurate information, esp. that which is deliberately intended to deceive.’ The council has allocated and undertaken extensive programmes to treat the sewage problem at St Clair, of which he very well knows isn’t complete (selectively using information for a false nature), and to bring the quality of the drinking water in northern regions of the city (which will be complete sometime in the new year). Peter what am I to take from this, either he knows these are being undertaken, or he’s ignorant of the facts and isn’t qualified to comment on.

    “The Auckland, ah, stadium debate was open and robust”. Well I would have to refute that for the reasons I give above, it was a political whitewash and a sham.

    Peter, as for the rest of your post, not sure what you’re saying. I’ve accused this man and this debate of being about mis/disinformation and lies, how I’d love simple and clear honesty in debate, but you’re off on something about big picture and ‘what’s really going down’. The irony is that Jeff was accusing pro stadium folk of using propaganda and misinformation, yet the basis of his whole argument is built upon propaganda and misinformation.

    “I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you” – Nietzsche

  6. Finally, I don’t like talking about this, it doesn’t give me any joy.

    All I want is for people to talk honestly and openly, that’s all I ask and the whole point of this blog, be honest and open.

  7. karetai

    Be honest Paul.
    All you want is for people to agree with you.

  8. Karetai,

    I’ve said from the very start, if you oppose the stadium on sound reasons like funding or affordability then I can’t argue with that.

    I actually started this blog as a criticism of the stadium’s original design, as a student of architecture, I thought we could have done better.

    I can’t stand lies and myths.

    If people tell porkies, expect them to be exposed. I respect Peter and the other intelligent people in the STS for their stance, those who have just smudged their way through waffle and bollocks need the public ridicule they’ve been spared thus far.

  9. karetai

    Jeff Dickie stated that both councils have not read the peer reviews
    True-Not all councillors have read those reviews.
    Ask Bryan Scott if he has (or had before the decision was made by the ORC to fund the stadium)
    Jeff claimed that there hasn’t been honest and open debate about the stadium
    True-Most of the commercially sensitive aspects of this project have been held behind closed doors.
    Water and sewage treatment projects are a casualty of council spending priorities.
    True-It was stated in the ODT recently that the second stage of the sewage treatment project was under threat for financial reasons.
    The Auckland stadium debate was open and robust.
    True-And it was decided that Eden Park was suitable after all for the rugby world cup.
    And let’s face it,out of a population of 1 million people,less than 16000 turned up to watch a world class soccer match.
    True-Mt Smart stadium losses cost the ratepayers $1 million a year.
    So my message to you Paul is
    If you want this damn stadium,why don’t you and others who are so desperate to have it PAY FOR IT YOURSELVES.

  10. Karetai,

    I said I don’t know if all councillors had read the peer reviews, but the two that I have asked had, so why hadn’t Bryan, it’s his job?

    Water treatment, it was suggested that the second stage MIGHT be delayed, but the first stage that will dramatically remove most chances of contamination has all but been compete. The Northern regions water treatment upgrade is well over half way through and will be completed, so his stating that water – well that’s just out right not true.

    Ok if you call a couple of weeks of yelling at each other and the media getting into a frenzy open and robust, then our stadium discussion has been a line by line dissection of War and Peace. The Auckland stadium debate was a debacle. They have taken the best part of 4 years to look into the waterfront stadium development in Vancouver, a couple of weeks – please.

    True it was decided that Eden Park was suitable for the Rugby World Cup, after a small sum of $320m dollars is thrown at it, and it’s completely redeveloped. Of which a huge amount is coming out of the governments and local government’s pockets. Aucklanders are forking out more rates money for that suburban stadium than we are.

    I was waiting for someone to repeat the letter to in the ODT today. Let’s look at that shall we. The reason that the Auckland football franchise was lost to Wellington is the apathetic Auckand crowds. They’re infamous for being pathetic, even when Auckland had the ranfurly shield (which more or less fills other stadiums) Auckland was lucky to get at times 6000 people to some of their games. First time around Beckham as a football God was a novelty, but second time – really, apart from hard core football supporters and young girls, who was really going to watch him play. Let’s face it, the LA Galaxy ain’t Manchester United, let alone Leeds or even Dagenham. If Wayne Rooney, Christian Ronaldo and Man U came to town to play an all star game, then there would have been no doubt that it would have been sold out, I would have flown up for it. But Beckham second time – they were lucky to get that many.

    If Mt Smart losses amount to that much, then they quite simply need to look at what is the point of 3-5 top class sporting venues in the Auckland region. We don’t even have one 2nd class stadium they have several top class, then add in Hamilton just down the road.

    Cool (SHOUTING AT THE TOP OF MY VOICE), I’ll raid my savings and find the several million dollars needed, see that was easy wasn’t it. I don’t want or need a sewage upgrade – PAY FOR IT YOURSELF. (hmm you may be right yelling might just work – nah).

    My message to you, stay calm, don’t shout, nice debate on some issues, but sorry didn’t get a pass mark, come back with some more reasons and give it a go again without the yelling.

  11. karetai

    Aucklanders are forking out more rates money for that suburban stadium than we are.
    Rubbish the population of Auckland is almost 10 times more than Dunedin and both taxpayers and ratepayers are paying for Eden Park.
    You’ve shot yourself in the foot more than once.
    If $320 million is required for just a redevelopment of a stadium,then how far will $188 million go in building a new stadium?
    If you’re lucky it may cover the costs of the foundations and a few walls.
    And if the sewage treatment project is almost complete then why do the beaches always seem to be closed?
    My message to you is don’t go getting your knickers in a twist just because you won’t be getting your own way.
    It’s such a pity that you can’t even have your bottom smacked now.

  12. Karetai,

    The Auckland City population is 438,000. Auckland City is the rate paying organisation that is going to provide the majority of the funding for the stadium (not greater Auckland city). Thus Dunedin’s population isn’t 43,000. Get the simple math right and the rest of the argument falls into place.

    Auckland City is still being asked to contribute $100m alone. I don’t know the absolute latest from the insane John Banks, but him and Rodney Hide together, thank goodness this redevelopment isn’t starting out now.

    I don’t know how much you understand about stadium, construction and money, but to redevelop is often as expensive as build from new. The $320m price is for a 60,000 seat stadium, that’s exactly double our proposed stadium. It’s not a redevelopment as you might think, massive parts of the stadium are being torn down and built from the ground up.

    $188m will go all the way towards completing the stadium. A few walls – blah! If you can’t be bothered arguing sensibly don’t bother.

    Which leads to the point about sewage treatment station. The beaches are sometimes closed as the current upgrades aren’t commissioned yet – that is they aren’t turned on. If it was complete then we will see a dramatic drop (not a complete elimination) in the number of days the beaches are closed from bacterial contamination. It’s pretty simple really. It’s like saying, the motorway is almost finished, but until then you still need to use the old one. Or, if the Dam is almost complete why isn’t it producing any electricity. Pretty simple really.

    Either you’re being silly, or argumentative for the sake of being facetious, either way refrain from the comments about shooting ones self in the foot, as the revolver is loaded and in your hands sunshine.

    As for the rest of your shite, this isn’t Kiwiblog, if you can’t be a little more civil, be prepared for the ridicule that deserves.

    This is so typical of the level of debate that has surrounded this development, misunderstanding and ignorance wrapped up in a nice campaign of mis/disinformation and lies, and people like you are buying it hook line and sinker.

  13. Peter Entwisle

    You’re mistaken Paul.

    What is nearly completed but not quite “waiting to be turned on” is the sewage outfall – the new pipe they’ve been building near Lawyers Head to take the sewage further out to sea. What isn’t built or even started is the further treatment plant. Cr. Walls has said that has to be put into the mix together with the stadium on a list of capital projects some of which may have to be cancelled or deferred. They might do that with the further treatment plant while going ahead with the stadium. The Environment Court has ruled that the further treatment plant is necessary to get the water off our beaches safe for people to swim in.

  14. Peter,

    I’m not wrong, and I know that for a fact. The sewage out fall pipe, which actually taps into the offshore currents, not the closer inshore currents, will improve the quality of the water on the beaches immensely. Thus the incidence of ‘treated’ effluent creating bacterial infestations closer to the beaches becomes less likely (not eradicated, but less likely by a magnitude).

    But quite serendipitously Cr Walls clarified this very situation for us in the ODT online over the weekend.

    You can read his comment here.

    http://www.odt.co.nz/your-town/dunedin/35683/surfers-sick-stalling-over-sewage#comment-1815

    But for those who can’t wait here’s the main comment

    “Council’s position is this.
    Stage 2 of the Tahuna Upgrade (Secondary Treatment) is budgetted for in Council’s community plan (LTCCP) at an estimated capital cost of nearly $67 million. The major part of this is anticipated to be spent in between July 2009 and June 2010.
    The community plan is, however, only a projection of what council plans to do over the next 10-years, i.e. “where we want to go”.
    What is in the Community Plan is always subject to each annual plan (“the road map: how we get there”), which sets out in detail all of council’s projected spending and its sources of income for the immediate year ahead starting on 1 July. The annual plan is usually considered and put out for public consultation in March of each year with submissions being heard in May.
    Once that is done and council considers submissions from the public, the draft is re-considered and confirmed by council with any amendments that result.
    It is only at that point, that the commitment to and expenditure on any capital project becomes firm.
    The necessary loans to fund such projects, will then be discussed by council with the likely funders (of which council has several)but any loans are not drawn down until the funds are required.
    In 2009, the Annual Plan will incorporate the statutory review of the 10-year Community Plan.”

    We are all well aware that the final stage of the new sewage treatment plant, may be delayed, but it will not be cancelled. Then again we are all well aware that the final stage of the new sewage treatment plant may go ahead as planned.

    As we aren’t able to prejudge what the council decides with respect to large capital spending, we have to assume, that until we have heard to the contrary, that as already planned the final stage is going ahead.

    Anything less is pure conjecture.

  15. Peter Entwisle

    Paul said:

    ‘Jeff Dickie claimed once again, despite the complete and full body of evidence against this pathetic claim that it’s a single use “Rugby Initiative, and it’s all to do with supporting rugby, it’s not a community thing, it’s got a very very narrow focus”.’

    Look at this again more closely.

    You claim it’s a lie but what is it saying which isn’t just true?

    You are trying to represent it as saying the stadium will only have one use, or is only intended to have one use, but that isn’t what it’s saying.

    The stadium IS a rugby initiative, literally. It started with the Otago Rugby Football Union wanting to do something about improving the state of Carisbrook. They didn’t have much money. They got the city council involved. Eventually a body was set up, the Carisbrook Stadium Trust to investigate options. It decided the one it favoured and wanted the city to support was a new covered stadium at Awatea Street. The project is a rugby initiative.

    “It’s all to do with supporting rugby”. That is the primary purpose of the project: to provide a ground in our area which will reach rising expectations so we will continue to be awarded big matches. That’s what Dickie is saying and it’s true. The other uses are to make the facility more viable.

    “It’s not a community thing, it’s got a very very narrow focus.” We know it’s intended to be multi-purpose but it wasn’t the product of a whole lot of different codes, and people like concert-goers and conference-providers, getting together and saying let’s all have one multi-purpose facility. The initiative came from the rugby union and there hasn’t been very much buy in. The university is interested in putting buildings beside it, true. But the students’ association doesn’t support it and the recent poll showed 73.3% of respondents don’t want it. Again, what Jeff Dickie is saying is true.

    The distinction between misinformation and disinformation is widely recognised, although some poor souls use the words as synonyms. One stands for false things said sincerely, the other for things said by people who believe them to be false – that’s the same as lying.

    You constantly accuse people of lying while a) failing to properly report what they are saying; b) studiously avoiding the arguments which show much of what you claim is false; c) usually failing even to attempt to show that where people have said something untrue they did this knowingly.

    It is you who continue to state untruths, the errors of which have been pointed out to you. It doesn’t make your arguments very persuasive.

  16. Peter Entwisle

    Paul said:

    “The Auckland City population is 438,000. Auckland City is the rate paying organisation that is going to provide the majority of the funding for the stadium (not greater Auckland city). Thus Dunedin’s population isn’t 43,000. Get the simple math right and the rest of the argument falls into place.

    Auckland City is still being asked to contribute $100m alone. I don’t know the absolute latest from the insane John Banks, but him and Rodney Hide together, thank goodness this redevelopment isn’t starting out now.

    I don’t know how much you understand about stadium, construction and money, but to redevelop is often as expensive as build from new. The $320m price is for a 60,000 seat stadium, that’s exactly double our proposed stadium. It’s not a redevelopment as you might think, massive parts of the stadium are being torn down and built from the ground up.

    $188m will go all the way towards completing the stadium. A few walls – blah! If you can’t be bothered arguing sensibly don’t bother.”

    Paul, you should do the maths and get the facts straight and then you’ll see why your argument doesn’t fly.

    Yes, the project is to enlarge Eden Park’s capacity from 47,500 (for rugby) to 60,000. The on-site cost of the upgrade is put at $320m, which is for a lesser option without all the seats covered, let alone the whole thing roofed. Yes, Auckland City has 438,000 people. Dunedin has 120,000.

    The NZRU has said it will contribute $10m to the Eden Park upgrade.

    The Eden Park Trust Board has offered another $24m.

    The government has said it will pay $190m.

    That leaves about $100m for Auckland City to come up with.

    So far it hasn’t said it will.

    Dunedin is being asked to pay $91.4m for the Awatea Street project. The comparable request to Auckland with 3 and 2/3rds Dunedin’s population would be for $334.2m. Or, to put it the other way round, the request to Auckland is like asking Dunedin to contribute about $30m to Awatea Street.

    Spot the difference?

    Also Auckland is not buying the land and building a completely new covered stadium. It is rebuilding an existing stadium and the result will not even have all the stands roofed, let alone be wholly covered.

    Yes, the upgraded Eden Park will be twice the capacity of Awatea Street. But do you start to see why people think $188m is probably not enough to build the Awatea Street stadium?

    Probably not but these are the facts and the figures.

  17. Peter, his whole tone and representation of the truth throughout the interview was skewed. The tone of what he said, implied that it was a rugby initiative and thus it’s a rugby only stadium. The audio is clear as a bell on that one. When challenged by Malcolm on that point, he didn’t interject (as he did all the way through the interview) and say ‘No I meant…’. We all know what he meant, and that is this is a rugby stadium.

    Peter you can play with the semantics of what you interpret the distinction for misinformation and lies.

    From the Oxford English Dictionary

    1)lie
    • noun 1 an intentionally false statement. 2 a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression.

    • verb (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) present a false impression.

    2)misinform
    • verb give false or inaccurate information to.

    DERIVATIVES misinformation noun.

    3)disinformation
    • noun information which is intended to mislead.

    Sorry, Dickie’s guilty on all three counts. Intending to mislead may be semantically different to intentionally false statement, but in the case of Dickie, the OJ glove fits like a proverbial…

    Do you know why the student’s association is against it. Here from Ryan Ward, co-president Otago Polytechnic Students’ Association.

    “The stadium has more effects than just being that of an entertainment venue:
    Students that live in the North Dunedin Area are generally good, hard working students. But a small minority of them like to cause trouble. we have found that to avoid this behaviour, things such as liquor bans and Campus watch have worked, also Strict Discipline procedures at an institutional level have worked well to curbe this. this has worked to deny the trouble causing groups the stage and the audience to act out, However put a stadium 300m down the road, and a big game on, we would be giving them both back again.”

    So because temptation is going to be put in the way of the minority of students, that’s a good enough reason to oppose the stadium. What a pathetic argument and quite frankly laughable. Every time a liquor licence comes up for review in North Dunedin, I’d like to see the Otago Polytechnic Students’ Association make submissions along those lines.

    Funny, considering a wide number of sporting bodies have come along and thrown their collective weight behind the stadium, I’d call that community support, rather than some part time student politician.

    Peter, as I have stated time and time again, I was surprised with the massive level of lies and disinformation in the media by opponents that those opposing the stadium wasn’t higher. Why is it Mr Dickie claimed that this was the only independent survey, when in fact it wasn’t. Surveys are a snapshot of a time and place, and considering opponents of the stadium have in the media painted Dunedin and Awatea Stadium as a ‘victim of global warming and sea level rise flooding, terrorists target, $500m white elephant, which costs business, tempts hapless students, makes beaches un-swimmable, keeps drinking water 3rd world, in a city that is on the brink of collapse in a global economy that is on the verge of meltdown leading to global depression’, I could go on, but it’s bloody boring. Given all of that rubbish day after day in the ODT without challenge or verification, it’s a bloody wonder anyone voted for it.

    You could correct me if I’m wrong, but also the survey didn’t just go out to rate payers, yet it is rate payers who are footing the bill. Even to get them to the question they put to the public was a heck of a struggle, it’s very evident which way the ‘colleagues’ in the Marketing dept are feeling about the stadium – hardly neutral.

  18. Peter Entwisle

    Paul said:

    “As we aren’t able to prejudge what the council decides with respect to large capital spending, we have to assume, that until we have heard to the contrary, that as already planned the final stage is going ahead.

    Anything less is pure conjecture.”

    This is fairly wonderful. It amounts to saying that what is projected, but not decided, must be treated as decided, until it is decided against.

    Why? It hasn’t been decided.

    The point is what is projected but not decided, is projected, not decided. It doesn’t make sense to treat it as anything else.

    You can’t turn the projected into the (sort of pro tem) decided. But that’s what you’re trying to do.

    I’m glad you now recognise there are two sewage projects not one and that only one of them has been committed to.

    You seem to argue that we don’t really need the second but that issue was very thoroughly thrashed out before the Environment Court which said, we definitely do need the further treatment project – the one which hasn’t been contracted.

    And that was the one Cr Walls indicated might fall victim to the stadium. If the council was foolish enough it might. I rather doubt that will happen. If it has to choose I suspect the stadium is more likely to get the chop. If those were the choices I think it would be irresponsible to choose otherwise.

    (There’s a time limit on the further treatment plant so deferral isn’t much of an option.)

  19. Peter there is ONE sewage project, broken down into stages, which was always going to be completed in stages. That’s like suggesting Lake Dunstan is a separate project to the Clyde Dam.

    This semantic gymnastics might be fun, but again it amounts to a game of mirrors and smoke screen of what is actually going on, a disinformation campaign.

    There was a suggestion that the final STAGE of the one sewage upgrade program might not go ahead, and boy did people jump upon that one. Just as they did sea level rising, global depression… But the suggestion at this stage is just that, it’s not a definitive truth, thus we have to assume that it’s still just that a suggestion.

  20. and Peter as I have stated.

    If he’s not lying, or deliberately misinforming people, then he’s woefully uninformed and thus not qualified to comment, or have his comments taken as valid argument.

  21. karetai

    Peter
    I read a submission to Auckland City Council’s annual plan.The council are providing $22 million for infrastructure around Eden Park and $10 million towards the redevelopment of Eden Park.

  22. karetai

    I’m probably telling more lies though lol

  23. Jody

    Hi Paul,

    Would you mind clarifying your statement about the “wide number of sporting bodies have come along and thrown their collective weight behind the stadium”. Which sporting bodies are these and how are they proposing to support the stadium? I seem to have missed hearing that other sporting codes apart from rugby and soccer have come out in support of this stadium, and I’m not sure about the level of support that is being pledged from these two groups.

    Interesting debate, by-the-way!

  24. Hi Jody (thanks for stopping by), I can only talk of the bodies that I have spoken to, and two wish to remain anon at the moment as they are in the middle of funding applications etc. But Rugby and Soccer for a start, include Hockey, Netball, Ice Hockey, Softball and Equestrian. The organising committee of the NZ Masters games is very interested to see how they could use the stadium, then there’s the secondary schools sporting bodies and national tournaments.

    You’ll have to ask them how they are intending to support the stadium, but if it’s anything like rugby and football, then that’s about 4/5 of all of the people playing sport in Otago on any given weekend, a pretty fair representation of the ‘community’ wouldn’t you say. Just because some tree huggers in home spun jerseys calling themselves a ‘community group’ isn’t spear heading this, doesn’t mean it’s not community supported. The suggestion is that all Jr football and rugby to a certain age group play on the grounds, under cover giving everyone a better winter sporting experience is a wonderful idea. Imagine Jr Football being down there instead of the wind swept Oval, ah the bliss, Thousands of kids and parents all filling the place, what a wonderful thing that would be. How many more parents would it encourage to get their kids to Sat morning sport if it was inside out of the weather in a cool new stadium? It would also take the pressure off the outdoor grounds and the younger kids would no longer have their sports cancelled because they want to protect the grounds. Of course if they are using the stadium, they are having to pay for that right.

    Then there are the occasional events that will attract massive tv coverage like RWC 2011, possible U20 Men’s and Women’s football world cup in 2015, quite possibly the Men’s world cup in OZ in 2018 (of which warm up games will be held here), and there isn’t a sporting tournament in the world that can match the spectacle and size of this. Looking further ahead, suggestion that an IAAF (athletics) Oceania tournament be held here (along the lines of the Grand Prix meetings in the northern hemisphere). Auckland has already signalled it want’s to hold the commonwealth games again, there’s always satellite competitions leading up to this. These are all suggestions, and considering they should be thinking ahead not just to tomorrow but 10 years from now, why not put these on your wish list and actively seek out these for Dunedin. Why not.

    As I said these aren’t all 100% committed, but they have stated that it would be a facility they would use. How, well that’s a moot point, because unlike other stadium developments in NZ, those opposing this stadium want to work in absolutes, when that simply isn’t the case of how the real world works.

    Take the money promised and already coughed up for the private funding allocation. People moan that money is only promised and not paid out. Yes it is promised and the day the first sod of soil is turned over is the day that money is needed and will be paid out. Likewise the secured funding for this project is already well ahead of any other single sport stadium development in NZ for the last 20 years or so, but again that’s not good enough for some, they want to see the folding stuff now, and that simply isn’t how the world works.

    Karetai, if that’s a figure you’ve seen I can take your word on it, however the last figure I saw in the Herald about July this year was $100, although it could be that Banks may be able to scale that back to $50 according to the NBR, but that’s not decided. The NBR suggests that the govt may be funding up to $190m, so you are paying for that, and how many concerts are you going to go to up there, how many Otago games are you going to see up there, it’s your money – perhaps the StS should be focusing a little more anger towards that?

    The point being (and who didn’t think this all along) central govt should be contributing more towards it. Just this morning Treasury was suggesting that regional infrastructure spending needs to be implemented immediately, perhaps our new buddies in the National Party can see the sense in that. Considering Treasury are suggesting that any project that can create 350 jobs in a region in a time like this should come up for serious consideration.

    Funny thing is, for $188m we are getting a stadium that can theoretically be used every single day of the year, Eden Park has the most amazing list of restrictions and caveats placed upon it, because it’s a suburban stadium (and rightly so, the decision to upgrade Eden Park was a sham).

  25. karetai

    Paul I’m wondering why you are so obsessed about what Jeff Dickie says?
    You have mentioned his name on another of your threads, “They’re bloody at it again” where you referred to him as “Poor old Jeff Dickie”
    You even mentioned his name at the ODT online yesterday.
    Many other Dunedin people have said more or less the same words as he has but you havn’t set up a special thread in their honour.
    You may like the words of this politician even better when he sums up the stadium issue.
    “I certainly agree that expensive vanity projects which serve only to feed the egos of local notables are not a proper use of public funds”

  26. Karetai,

    quite simply because he managed to get on National Radio and hence national coverage. A while ago my fight de jour was with Dr Hamlin, who know’s who I’ll pick on next.

    That wouldn’t be our friendly climate change denier and hater of taxation as a system would it? Shows how much of a grip on the situation this individual has, nice to see that person has looked at all of the issues and is considering his/her position. It’s politicians like this we really need running the country at a time like this, when the ‘un’conventional wisdom born of Keynesian interventionism is winning the day over ideologues whom have given so much rope to Wall St that they are not only doing their best to hang themselves but take us down with them. But we’ll all bow to the scholarship of (we can assume) climate change denier and laissez-faire ideologue.

    Get it, I can’t stand the git.

  27. karetai

    You’re assuming that the politician is Rodney Hide and you’re wrong.

  28. Well that’s a bugger, there’s more than one in Parliament then that’s willing to speak his/her mind before considering all the facts, now there’s a surprise.

    Good thing this nameless Politician can’t tell the DCC what to do then eh.

    BTW silly game.

  29. Richard

    I have regularly visited to keep up with the interesting pros and cons being exchanged on this site. At times, it reminds me – well to a large extent – of the robust debates we used to have in days past when ‘The Fourth Estate’ played such an vital part and before councils were tied up in never ending red tape by central government at huge cost. I am not saying that change was not needed, just that it has gone to far. But that’s another debate, just as kind of exchange may be taking over from the printed media to head “The Fourth Estate”. I digress.

    Peter Entwisle says – in his post of 15 December – in reference to the last stage of the Tahuna Sewage Upgrade: ” And that was the one Cr Walls indicated might fall victim to the stadium.”

    I did no such thing.

    For the record and in the interest of accuracy, I quote the precise text from the report in ‘The Otago Daily Times’ of 23 October which can also be referenced in ODT Online under the headline “Question mark over Dunedin’s financial future”.

    ” Finance and Strategy committee chairman Richard Walls said until the situation changed, projects like the Settlers Museum, the Tahuna secondary treatment plant, and drainage and road renewal might have to be deferred. The stadium is in that mix.” But Cr Walls said nobody should be losing sleep over the issue. “The management of our financing is in extraordinarily good hands.”

    The ODT report referred to carried comment by Athol Stephens, Council’s General Manager, Finance and Corporate, and Mayor Peter Chin as well as myself, and was made against the backdrop of the turmoil in financial markets and possible difficulties that could arise in funding the projected capital works programme of Council as set out in the current (10 year) Community Plan.

    It was therefore very much a “what might” or “what if” scenario. Nothing more, nothing less …. reflecting reality in uncertain times.

    Nothing has occurred since 23 October that has required Council to act. ALL the major capital works listed in the 10 year Community Plan (the LTCCP) stand.

    If any changes are proposed – for any reason – then that will occur, as is normal each year in conjunction with the Draft Annual Plan in January. Any changes in both are subject to public consultation.

    If any major changes to the capital works programme are made outside of that process, then they too are subject to statutory public consultation.

    Seasonal greetings and every good wish for 2009 for us all and the future of our great ‘wee’ city.

    Richard Walls
    Chair, Finance and Strategy
    Dunedin City Council

  30. Hi Richard,

    Many thanks for stopping by. Although a pro stadium blog, I accept comments from all sides, as you say, this used to be the domain of the 4th estate, but somehow that’s no longer their domain. I was willing to accept that role. The numbers visiting the site are promising, nice to see more commenting recently.

    But I always welcome anyone able to clarify the issues. As I have stated, all I want is the truth to prevail, that’s all anyone should expect.

    Many thanks again and too you too a happy holiday season.

  31. karetai

    Hi there Richard
    The Waitaki District Council has slashed a proposed rates increase from 14.8% to 3.8%
    The Mayor Alex Familton was reported as saying
    “I believe we have extraordinary times and we need to make an extraordinary stand.Alot of people in the community were facing economic difficulties because of global factors and the council had to take that into consideration”
    Have a nice Christmas too.

  32. karetai

    Anti stadium people get accused of being liars and scaremongers but Peter Chin would have to be the biggest liar and scaremonger when he suggested that Rodney Hide’s comment “for councils to stick to the basics” would lead to the privatisation of libraries.

  33. Karetai,

    let me clarify something for you. I only point out those who lie, I don’t accuse people of such stuff lightly (one should never be blasé with using such terms), and I don’t apply that whole brush to everyone opposed to the stadium, only those who know the truth but choose not to acknowledge it.

    What is good for Waitaki District Council may not necessarily be good for us. Remember that is an exceedingly conservative council area, rural folk hate parting with money even when their accountants tell them they must.

    Come on, having the deeply disturbing and dogmatic ideologue Rodney Hide in Parliament is terrifying. This is the same guy who doesn’t believe in taxes or Global Warming, where the user has to pay for everything, it’s not too hard a bow to draw to say such things about Hide (in fact it’s exceedingly easy to say or attribute such things to that man). He’s the man that bought the relic (seriously who found the defibrillator on election night) Roger Douglas back into the house, the same man that spurted the most out-of-touch diatribe, basically picking up on the sentence he finished up on over a decade ago.

    BTW what he said, is a pretty logical conclusion of the Hide statement, if you were to adhere to the Hide political dogma, no Libraries are not core business for councils.

    But just out of curiosity what in the Waitaki district are they looking to cut back on. If it’s essential upgrade of services, these will need to be done at some other time. When will be the right time, when interest rates are back up around 10%. I’ve heard some pretty compelling arguments, that if you can afford to borrow, and the credit is there, now has never been cheaper time to do so.

  34. karetai

    Paul you said “rural folk hate parting with money even though their accountants tell them they must”
    You must be joking.

  35. karetai

    Rural folk pay for most of the regional council rates.They even have to pay for the dumping of 1080 poisoning on their neighbours properties even if they object to it.
    So stop talking absolute nonsense

  36. Karetai,

    take a deep breath, it was a tongue in cheek comment. But of course like all things, many stereotypes are born of some form of reality. There is a mighty stereotype that the rural community (being nice conservative National voters) hate to see govts spend money, so to see them cut back on rates rises is nothing surprising.

    This blog is about the stadium, not the ill’s of 1080 poisoning, there are plenty of other forums for that, Kiwiblog and The Standard or even Frog Blog, but not here.

    The fact that Waitaki is cutting back on planned rates increases has little to do with us. Do I mention that the OZ govt has just decided to inject billions into Infrastructure development (to stimulate the economy), to which they have deemed each state can get several million each specifically allocated for stadiums.

    It’s a very simple conflict of interests within right wing economics, and those who adhere to the somewhat maligned Keynesian school of thought (spend your way out of recession) seem to be winning the day.

    Quite simply, if one is dispassionate enough to observe the cyclic nature of economics, the normal state is that of growth not depression. By 2011 when the stadium is set to open, Treasury and the Reserve Bank have forecast growth of 4.1% (too fast for their liking). By which time interest rates will once again be on the rise. If the DCC was looking to raise funds to pay for large capital expenditure projects, they should be looking into these loans sooner rather than later.

  37. karetai

    Well all I can say to you Paul is unemployment is expected to increase to 7%. You better start praying that you won’t be one of them.

  38. Richard

    Karetai,

    I do not wish to widen the focus of this debate in regard to the merits or otherwise of the proposed Otago Stadium. Nor, I am certain, does Paul!

    You do however refer to Waitaki District cutting its proposed rate increase for 2009-10 from 14.3% to 3.8%.

    It is not for me to comment on – nor do I know – what Waitaki District Council has cut, deferred, or added to its operations budget and/or capital programme.

    Your comment, however, does highlight the need to separate on-going day-to-day operational expenditure from that for capital projects.

    Major long-term capital projects which, in Dunedin’s case, include the on-going upgrading of sewage treatment and disposal, the redevelopment of Logan Park, the Dunedin Centre and, of course, the proposed Otago Stadium, are almost always funded by loan. This reflects not only their upfront cost but also spreads that cost over the several generations of people who will use them.

    Day-to-day operations – e,g, the provision and maintenance of specific services to properties such as water in/water out which may be levied by targeting (set dollar) rates, and to those we enjoy/use in the wider community – roads, parks, sports grounds, botanic garden, etc, must be funded from income from rates and/or user charges or a combination of both. That expenditure cannot – by law – be financed by loan. Nor should it be, to do so would be like borrowing on your house to buy the groceries and wine.

    The prime question that therefore confronts councils each year is whether the quality of those services and amenities are to be maintained, reduced or enhanced.

    It is a fact of life that people seldom opt for a reduction!

    That should not – and does not – prevent a general questioning/review of them as to cost, whether there is a better way of doing things etc. Trying to cut them though is a different story!

    The second question is the proposed programme of major capital works. Draft Annual/Community Plans always seems to focus on something “sexy” and controversial, in Dunedin in recent years this has been firstly the Dunedin Centre and then the stadium.

    Nothing wrong with a robust and well-informed debate, of course, but is too often overlooked that, in Dunedin City over the past 18 years, it is the cost increases in providing and maintaining existing levels of core essential services and amenity – and upgrading them – that have driven up rates in recent years, not the “sexy stuff”.

    Given all that, in comparison to other major cities, Dunedin’s current average residential rating is $1,466. Hamilton’s is $1,533; Auckland’s is $2,095 and Waitakere’s $2,140. And Waitaki’s is $1,981.

    Nothing can be considered in isolation!

    Trust this is helpful!

    Richard Walls
    Chair
    Finance and Strategy
    Dunedin City Council

  39. karetai,

    if you wish to discuss economics, lets look at some facts and comparisons then.

    Projections of 7% unemployment considering this is supposedly the greatest economic calamity to besiege the global economy since the great depression of the 1930’s I would say is stunningly brilliant. Considering the 1980’s and 1990s (not in depression) saw unemployment peak at 10.2%, somewhat considerably higher.

    Besides that, lets keep the personal out of it, I can’t really see me laying myself off in the near future.

  40. karetai

    Richard I don’t know where you got those figures from? I have friends who live in the Waitaki District.Their house has a rateable value of $400-000 and their rates are $1050.

  41. karetai

    I wouldn’t call an $188 million stadium for rugby a sexy project. But I do think that many of the councillors have been around for far too long and Dunedin needs a few more younger and sexier councillors.

  42. Richard

    Karetai

    The Waitaki DC. A detailed table can be found in the agenda papers for the DCC Finance and Strategy meeting on 1 December.

    Bear in mind, that property rating is a very blunt instrument. The rateable value for any one property can depends on several factors, e.g. the availability of services. That may – or may not – explain the example you refer to.

    Incidentally the 2008-09 DCC Annual Plan as adopted in June of this year, projected a rate rise of approximately 6.3% for the 2009-10 year. This INCLUDED the Stadium.

  43. Peter Entwisle

    Paul,

    have you stopped to notice your quote from the Oxford English Dictionary confirms what I’ve been saying all along?

    “Peter you can play with the semantics of what you interpret the distinction for misinformation and lies.

    From the Oxford English Dictionary

    1)lie
    • noun 1 an intentionally false statement. 2 a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression.

    • verb (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) present a false impression.

    2)misinform
    • verb give false or inaccurate information to.

    DERIVATIVES misinformation noun.

    3)disinformation
    • noun information which is intended to mislead.”

    A lie is an intentionally false statement.

    Misinforming is simply giving false or inaccurate information.

    Disinformation is information intended to mislead.

    I have not said there is any difference between an intentionally false statement and giving information intended to mislead. I have said in effect they’re the same. They’re both forms of lying.

    Also, as I’ve maintained all along, misinformation is different. It’s just information which happens to be wrong – which may be given sincerely by someone who believes it to be true. You are the one who has tried to blur that distinction.

    As for your case that Jeff Dickie was lying or giving misinformation when he said the stadium is a rugby initiative it just doesn’t stack up against the words. He hasn’t said the stadium is intended to be used only for rugby. You are trying to put words into his mouth he hasn’t uttered. Now that is misleading – albeit sincerely in your case. He says one thing. You are so biased you treat it as saying something else.

  44. Peter Entwisle

    As I have said elsewhere Richard Walls’ reply to my remark only confirms what I said.

    Richard said:

    Peter Entwisle says – in his post of 15 December – in reference to the last stage of the Tahuna Sewage Upgrade: ” And that was the one Cr Walls indicated might fall victim to the stadium.”

    I did no such thing.

    For the record and in the interest of accuracy, I quote the precise text from the report in ‘The Otago Daily Times’ of 23 October which can also be referenced in ODT Online under the headline “Question mark over Dunedin’s financial future”.

    ” Finance and Strategy committee chairman Richard Walls said until the situation changed, projects like the Settlers Museum, the Tahuna secondary treatment plant, and drainage and road renewal might have to be deferred. The stadium is in that mix.” But Cr Walls said nobody should be losing sleep over the issue. “The management of our financing is in extraordinarily good hands.”

    The ODT report referred to carried comment by Athol Stephens, Council’s General Manager, Finance and Corporate, and Mayor Peter Chin as well as myself, and was made against the backdrop of the turmoil in financial markets and possible difficulties that could arise in funding the projected capital works programme of Council as set out in the current (10 year) Community Plan.

    It was therefore very much a “what might” or “what if” scenario. Nothing more, nothing less …. reflecting reality in uncertain times.

    Nothing has occurred since 23 October that has required Council to act. ALL the major capital works listed in the 10 year Community Plan (the LTCCP) stand.

    If any changes are proposed – for any reason – then that will occur, as is normal each year in conjunction with the Draft Annual Plan in January. Any changes in both are subject to public consultation.

    If any major changes to the capital works programme are made outside of that process, then they too are subject to statutory public consultation.”

    I had said:

    ‘…in reference to the last stage of the Tahuna Sewage Upgrade: ” And that was the one Cr Walls indicated might fall victim to the stadium.”’

    By putting the stadium in the mix of projects – which he explcitily said includes the Tahuna Secondary Treatment plant – which might have to be deferred, Cr Walls was indicating there is a possibility the stadium might go ahead while the Secondary Treatment plant was deferred. He indicated it might fall victim to the stadium.

    No doubt Paul will call this semantics. It’s actually just taking note of what people really said and what that strictly implies.

  45. Peter Entwisle

    Thanks Karetai, for the updated figures concerning Auckland City Council’s contribution to the Eden Park project.

    In my post above I was talking about the $100m at one time expected to be asked of Auckland City Council.

    You note a contribution of $22m for infrastructure around Eden Park and $10m for the onsite upgrade itself. (You said that came from a submission to their annual plan. Presumably it was talking about a commitment made.)

    That makes a total commitment of $32m compared with $91.4m asked for from the DCC. (This last figure doesn’t include any offsite infrastructure expenses. There will be at least some of those for the Awatea Street project. Don Hill the city’s transport manager has acknowledged $1.5m. Doubtless there will be more.)

    This reinforces the point I made above.

    Dunedin’s population is about 120,000 and it’s being asked for $91.4m.

    Auckland’s population was given as 438,000 and it’s being asked for $32m.

    What Dunedin is being asked for is comparable to asking Auckland for $334.2m.

    Auckland’s $32m actual commitment is the equivalent of Dunedin putting about $8.7m into Awatea Street.

    Proportionately Dunedin is being asked for a far, far bigger contribution.

  46. Peter Entwisle

    Paul,

    you accuse me of playing semantics but look at what you’ve just done.

    “Peter there is ONE sewage project, broken down into stages, which was always going to be completed in stages. That’s like suggesting Lake Dunstan is a separate project to the Clyde Dam.

    This semantic gymnastics might be fun, but again it amounts to a game of mirrors and smoke screen of what is actually going on, a disinformation campaign.”

    You can call it two projects (me) or one with two parts (you) but the significant point, which you have now conceded, is that one part project (or whole project) is committed – in fact is nearly built – while the other isn’t. That means the other could be deferred, or even just never done, in principle. So, as I pointed out, that part project (or whole project) could fall victim to the stadium – by being deferred while the stadium went ahead. Now you’ve conceded that too:

    “There was a suggestion that the final STAGE of the one sewage upgrade program might not go ahead, and boy did people jump upon that one. Just as they did sea level rising, global depression… But the suggestion at this stage is just that, it’s not a definitive truth, thus we have to assume that it’s still just that a suggestion.”

    The indication came from a councillor, Richard Walls, one of the people who make the decisions. It has not been claimed that this is definitely what will happen but Councillor Walls has indicated the possibility is real. It has to be taken seriously. If it eventuated it would produce an outcome stadium opponents have pointed to as possible and deplorable.

    Your are frequently guilty yourself of the failings you attribute to others. This is a good example.

  47. Elizabeth

    The ODT (23.10.08) said: ” Finance and Strategy committee chairman Richard Walls said until the situation changed, projects like the Settlers Museum, the Tahuna secondary treatment plant, and drainage and road renewal might have to be deferred. The stadium is in that mix.” But Cr Walls said nobody should be losing sleep over the issue. “The management of our financing is in extraordinarily good hands.”

    I took another reading of Cr Walls comments when first published. Such that the stadium, along with the other projects, might have to be deferred – the stadium being in the same mix for this kind of careful consideration by Council.

    I certainly didn’t take it (then or now) as making the stadium a priority over other projects – but of course this might qualify as one option of the many possible. Its chances of stacking up might not be straightforward for the Council to accept given the balance of undertakings required to sustain Dunedin’s long-term future.

    For this reason I won’t be losing any sleep – I rely on Councillors to make good decisions for the community on the basis of the quality and breadth of information it calls for, receives and debates. Diligence takes time and effort.

  48. Richard

    Thank you, Elizabeth. You have got what I said absolutely right in ‘one’!

    Peter: I am disappointed. You have put your “own spin” on what I said – twice.

    Only some of Council’s forward capital projects were referred to in the ODT report of 23 October.

    As you well know, the complete list can be found in the current Annual Plan adopted last June and available in printed form or on Council’s website.

    The secondary treatment plant at Tahuna – budgeted to cost around $70 million – is but one.

    I did not highlight it. That was something ‘The Star’ decided to do when it hooked on to the views of surfers some 6 weeks later!

    Like it or not, in such circumstances, but nothing on that list can be excluded from consideration.

    Council simply does not make such decisions on the basis of how one group might be affected but on the benefits to the wider community.

    Nor are such decisions made in isolation.

    As Elizabeth – has underlined with her posting, you have got it wrong.

    Richard

  49. karetai

    Near the same time that Richard Walls made those remarks, the CST were given alot more of the ratepayers money for marketing.Does that not speak for itself as to where the DCC’s priorities lay?

  50. karetai

    $50 million has already been spent on the stadium which makes the cost of it $238 million so far.

  51. KLK

    “$50 million has already been spent on the stadium which makes the cost of it $238 million so far.”

    Small price to pay to drag some people into the 21st century Karetai, and build a city for the future, rather than a museum for those in the present.

  52. Richard

    karetai”
    December 22, 2008 at 4:53 pm

    “Near the same time that Richard Walls made those remarks, the CST were given a lot more of the ratepayers money for marketing. Does that not speak for itself as to where the DCC’s priorities lay?”

    Really, “Karetai”? Just where do you get your information?

  53. Peter

    Karetai, would you mind clarifying how you get your $235 million? It seems you are adding $188m (stated cost of Otago Stadium) + $50m (approximate costs incurred to date). Does your $50m actually comprise costs out of the $188m which include funds to be deducted from the project such as the recovery of money by the DCC from Otago University (for land at Awatea Street –already $5.6 million but ultimately $10m) and extra land purchased for the realignment of SH88?

  54. Peter Entwisle

    Read what Elizabeth said Richard,

    “I took another reading of Cr Walls comments when first published. Such that the stadium, along with the other projects, might have to be deferred – the stadium being in the same mix for this kind of careful consideration by Council.”

    Elizabeth is right. That’s one possibility. Another of course is that the stadium gets preferred while the Tahuna upgrade gets deferred. You pointed to that possibility. There are several in what you said. You didn’t indicate your own preferences but you indicated they were there. Previously there was only an unprioritised list (‘mix”) of capital projects.

    It’s a significant shift and I note your candour in acknowledging it. It’s a pity you don’t see it’s full implications.

  55. Richard Walls

    Peter:

    As I say, you are entitled to YOUR opinion of what I said.

    I simply reject it.

    And move on.

    Enjoy the day!

  56. karetai

    Peter
    December 23, 2008 at 6:51 pm
    Karetai, would you mind clarifying how you get your $235 million? It seems you are adding $188m (stated cost of Otago Stadium) + $50m (approximate costs incurred to date). Does your $50m actually comprise costs out of the $188m which include funds to be deducted from the project such as the recovery of money by the DCC from Otago University (for land at Awatea Street –already $5.6 million but ultimately $10m) and extra land purchased for the realignment of SH88?

    Sorry Peter I made a mistake.I added $50 million to the costs of the stadium instead of substracting that figure from the total cost.
    So now I’ve got my sums correct and I will subtract $32.5 million approx for the cost of the land plus the $11.5 million that the DCC lent??? to the CST which equals $44 million which is already spent,give or take a few dollars.That’s a total of
    $44 million already spent on this project,plus donations from Community Trust of Otago.
    That leaves around $144 million left for the construction and the fitting out of the stadium and the realignment of state highway 88.
    It’s not looking good is it considering the redevelopment of Eden Park is going to cost around $340 million.
    What exactly can you get in the way of stadiums for $144 million after you’ve taken the cost of realigning a road out of that sum?
    And don’t tell me that the realignment of state highway 88 was already on the DCC’s agenda,not the new version of it anyway.
    Farry’s mistake will end up costing the city dearly.

  57. karetai

    Richard when were you last in Christchurch?
    If it was recently I hoped you noticed that the roads were great and that the potholes like you find everywhere in Dunedin were missing.

  58. Karetai,

    last point, what a load of twaddle. I’m in chch and have been for the last week (my old home town). I’m awfully fond of the old place, but do not tell me the streets are better than Dunners, this simply isn’t the fact, or are you hanging around a very narrow corridor of streets in the Ilam/Merivale area.

    Have you been to the city centre recently, I know it’s an unfair example because they are about to undergo the umpteenth redesign and rebuild of that area, but really, it’s a mess.

    Another point about CHCH and the old buildings, which is related to the historical value of Carisbrook and the criticism of the Princess St development (which I’m assuming many StS folk are opposed to – not too long a bow to draw?). Someone in the ODT lamented the destruction of the CHCH urban environment, the old Lancaster Park and Edmonds Building among others. Problem was, Lancaster Park was past it’s best in the 1980’s and the old Edmonds building was nothing but a decrepit shell, not used by anyone, of nothing but sentimental historical value (“look at our old building isn’t it nice”). What lies in place is now a beautiful and Functional (with the emphasis on capital F) urban garden, which I have taken my kids to, they loved it. I would hardly have taken my kids to an old empty building, but they loved the park.

    Back off down Ferry Road to some mates place for a swim tomorrow, shall I be so boring and pedantic as to count the pot holes for you (I could even be so boorish as to twitter or GPS locate them fro you)?

  59. Actually what I find incredibly difficult sitting back and watching this thread is the inability/unwillingness for someone’s word (that of a credible councillor, supposedly the source) simply isn’t accepted as the truth.

    Yet when over at the StS (when it was a living entity), I quarried someone in the StS’s comments in the newspaper and was quickly rebuked by that person, end of story, I had to take their word for it.

    Rather bizarre (and not a straw person involved – but I did build a straw house, could be some predilection to the material?)

  60. karetai

    Paul if it’s not too much trouble I would appreciate the GPS locations of all the pot holes in Christchurch.
    As for the credibility of councillors (and politicians) all I can say is
    Did you believe everything that Winston Peters said?
    There’s a fellow down the road who was in business and ripped his clients off for a considerable amount of money.He was found guilty and has done the time.He’s very interested in politics.
    Would you have alot of faith in him if he was to become one of your councillors?

  61. Karetai, if you carry on this line of argument (you are getting very close to calling Cr Walls a liar or cheat etc), I’ll have to give you time off.

    I’ll accept a VERY robust level of debate at this site, as opposed to the StS site, but I will not accept this.

    Keep to the debate. The ODT has been famous for misquoting or misrepresenting people (on both sides of the debate) lately. Cr Walls has clarified both his and the Council’s official position on what is the actual situation regarding the state of the sewage outfall saga.

    You somehow don’t accept that. In which case I suggest you take it up with the council and lawyers and don’t push your luck with the slander game.

  62. karetai

    Paul read back over my last comment posted January 2 and tell me where I mentioned Richard Walls name. By assuming and accusing you are making an ass of yourself.
    Anyway it seems like there is one rule for yourself and another rule for others because you are the one who continually calls people “Liars”
    PS. I hope you read the Opinion page in yesterday’s ODT where Dunedin’s roads were described as being some of the worst in NZ. Hear Hear

  63. karetai

    Paul what’s the use in contacting the council about the state of Dunedin’s roads when roading is included in their budget cuts.
    Richard may be able offer an explanation as to why the council chose to cut back on important works like roading.
    Because I have no idea.
    And I’m not going to assume that the reason was because a stadium was more important.
    You really piss me off Paul because to you a new stadium is more important than anything else in the city.
    Do you not think about the elderly who have lived perhaps all their lives in the same home?
    Their homes may have been worth a couple of hundred thousand dollars a few years ago,but with the new valuations,those same homes are worth considerably more.
    Now they’re paying through the roof for rates on a house that would sell tomorrow for what it was worth a few years ago.
    But their superannuation has not increased enough to keep up with inflation.
    So these are the ones who are struggling.
    But ones like you and Richard don’t give a toss about these people.
    So long as you get your rugby stadium is all that matters.
    But of course you twist it around to make it appear that it will be a multi purpose stadium.
    But you havn’t told those who will be paying for it,that this is going to cost them a few million dollars more.
    I’ve been a bad person,I’ve been too honest.
    I’d say that deserves a banning.

  64. It’s very simple. There hasn’t been any cuts that I know of, only signalled cuts if things get worse. We have had it from many different sources in the DCC that the City Council and it’s commercial operations are in a very good state to weather any economic impact from the wider global conditions.

    There is still money to fix the roads, there was road works I drove by just yesterday, there are always going to be road works. Have you even tried the fix-a-gram, did you get the letter back stating that the holes won’t be fixed due to budget cuts?

    As for the other issues you seem to be able to confuse. I am pro stadium because I believe that it will benefit the wider community. It is a good thing that peoples property values are increasing. It is also not the fault of the stadium that their property values have increased. I have never heard it described a bad thing that peoples assets have increased in value. Those poor elderly people you mention now have a nest egg to look after their later care, aged care is very expensive. They now also have a gift that they can pass on to their children/family/a pet named Chuckles or some charity when they part from this place.

    If they like every other home owning member of society don’t need to sell their house today/tomorrow or in the immediate future will again see house prices appreciate, and they will see the full returns of property investment. If they need to sell their house immediately, that is unfortunate and a fault of the greed of Wall St not some stadium development 8,ooo miles away.

    Then there is the young couple with kids on fixed income who over the last few years have seen upwards of a 20% increase in the value of their houses. They now have a valuable asset which will help set them up for the future. They now have the capital assets that will enable them to get bigger house etc.

    Over simplification of the argument, much like Cr Eckhoff’s opinion piece in the paper does nothing to help us understand the issues.

    You are all over the place in your argument and really seem quite confused about the issues. You’re not being honest, you’re confused. Read the posts I have placed about the myths surrounding this development because you have fallen for many of these. It’s not a single use rugby stadium with spiralling costs.

    Sorry I seem to be annoying you, but do not make assumptions about who or what I care for. I care deeply for this city and for my two boys. I wish to live in a vibrant city with more opportunities for the future residents of this city, and a stadium will be just one piece of the puzzle that will make this happen.

    You can post as often as you like and as passionately as you like, unlike the StS, I encourage this, however do not make slanderous and off topic accusations like you made in previous posts. That and personal abuse will be the only reasons I’d block anyone on this blog. That was neither honesty nor comical sarcasm. So keep it clean and civil, but robust and we’ll all argue to the cows come home (about 4:30 depending on day light savings?).

  65. Richard

    In his post on 5 January, KARETAI says: “Their homes may have been worth a couple of hundred thousand dollars a few years ago, but with THE NEW VALUATIONS those same homes are worth considerably more. Now they’re paying through the roof for rates on a house that would sell tomorrow for what it was worth a few years ago.”

    The valuations ‘Karetai’ refers to are obviously those for RATING purposes. These are undertaken as required by statute every three years – in the case of Dunedin, by Quotable Valuation.

    “Karetai” is not alone in his perception that these RATING VALUATIONS represent the market value of any property. It may be a snapshot of that value at the time the valuation is made – based on property sales in an area – but that is all.

    It is also erroneous to assume that the rating valuations in themselves mean that council receives more revenue. They do not.

    That is determined each year by the ‘budgets’ set out in each Annual Plan.

    The rating valuations are then used by council to apportion the rates payable by each property. This is sometimes referred to as “dividing the pie” and, given that rating is property based, it is the only means councils have of apportioning and levying rates. We do not have access to personal income information.

    In regard to ROADING, on-going (operational) maintenance (including potholes) must be directly funded from revenue, i.e. rates and/or grants from Transport NZ (formerly Transit). The level of priority and expenditure is determined each year in the Annual Plan.

    I do not have direct access to my files, but my recollection of the 2007 survey results is that citizens are generally quite satisfied with the overall condition of roading in the city.

    Conversely, the construction of NEW roading is a CAPITAL WORK and can be funded from loan.

    Capital Projects in the 10 year budget include The Dunedin Centre ($43,692m), Logan Park Redevelopment ($15,030m), Settler’s Museum Redevelopment ($29,290m), Library ($22,973m), Tahuna Upgrade Stage 2 ($62.680m) and … of course .. the proposed Stadium ($127.025m). Oh, I should not leave out the Transportation Network (Roading etc) at $87.168 million). These are all considered and their priority determined as part of the Annual Plan process each year.

    The round for the 2009/10 year (commencing 1 July next) hits the council table in draft form two weeks today, 21 January when we sit down for our three-day meeting to work on the DRAFT. This year it includes the statutory review of the Long-Term (10 years) Community Plan.

    The essential decision on whether the proposed Awatea Street Stadium goes ahead or not is part of the mix but will be separately determined at Finance and Strategy on 9 February.

    It will almost certainly be covered in the media but direct interest is, of course, welcomed.

    The final DRAFT PLAN will, as usual, go out for public consultation and submissions late March or early April.

    I trust this is helpful.

    Happy New Year!

  66. karetai

    Paul do you really think a brand spanking new stadium is going to make the city more vibrant?
    When I asked my son if he would return to Dunedin from Auckland if the stadium went ahead,he laughed.
    Your boys will do the same in years to come.
    Cities like Auckland,London,Sydney are exciting when you’re young and can earn mega bucks.
    Dunedin will never be like that.Even our best rugby players are disappearing to greener and richer pastures.
    They may all return one day to retire.
    Havn’t you noticed that most of the pro stadium people are wealthy superannuants who are also rugby fanatics.
    Most of them are clinging to a dream that died when rugby became a professional sport.

  67. Sorry, I have lived around the world and Auckland is not an exciting city. London, Vancouver, NY and Sao Paulo are exciting.

    Dunedin is never going to be like those places, it never pretended to be and will never pretend to be. But a Stadium (along with the Uni and other endeavours) in my honest view will be just another asset to the city. Of course no one will come back to Dunedin because it’s got a stadium, what a preposterous thought, but then that’s how limiting those opposing the stadium want to view this development.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again and again, IF (and this is the big IF) the right management team is put together (and not some mediocre lot), then this will be a vibrant and busy venture, attracting a wide range of entertainment and other activities to the city currently bypassing us. I have no doubt about that. But if the wrong management team is in place, and mediocre attractions and events are bought to the city, they should be removed and people able to do the job put in place. The stadium will be but the tool which will enable a dynamic event management team to do their job.

    I do love the gross generalisations made about who the stadium supporters are. Funny, myself and every single other person I know supporting the stadium don’t fit into your demographic.

    BTW, I was slowed in my drive for a decent flat white today with the road works (major resurfacing) that had all traffic down to one lane. Still my 3 year old wanted to stop to watch the men at work, seems he wasn’t the only one happy with the council spending.

    • Hype O'Thermia

      ” Of course no one will come back to Dunedin because it’s got a stadium, what a preposterous thought, but then that’s how limiting those opposing the stadium want to view this development.” But Paul, don’t you remember that was one of the “selling points”? It would attract more students, it would keep people here, it would attract others!
      “But if the wrong management team is in place, and mediocre attractions and events are bought to the city, they should be removed and people able to do the job put in place.” Sound quality, expensive access from outside the region, innumerable more profitable and more accessible venues for events to perform at – these are what any management team is up against. Sure, with a large enough drum of oil to grease palms with one could probably have Beyonce, Mick Jagger, Putin’s horse and Stephen Hawking as supporting acts to Lorde, but would it break even, taking into account all the baksheesh plus subsidies plus “special funds”? Given the extraordinary difficulty (proximate to impossibility) of the task I’d as soon see the job given at an appropriate salary to a washed-up mediocrity employed on “living wage” hourly rate on an on-call basis.

  68. Calvin Oaten

    What can one say? Time, they say is of the essence. Boy, I wonder if Paul would wish to recant any of that? Who would have thought then, that the Stadium would in fact turn out to be the ‘monumental dud’ that it has. And that it would be destined to influence the financial integrity of this city for decades to come. Who indeed would today still be as keen as Paul to get this monstrosity up and running? I wonder if Paul would care to comment?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s